A Year of Dishonest Reporting — Why The Guardian Won
December 13, 2011 10:24 by Pesach Benson
It was a landslide.
HonestReporting readers were asked to choose this year’s Dishonest Reporting Award, and they spoke out — with a vengeance we haven’t seen for nominations in previous years. Read about the winners in ten other categories on the Dishonest Reporting Awards main page.
In comments on our web site, our Facebook community, 
and in emails, accusations of anti-Semitism turned the heat up on an annual discussion normally about imbalanced stories, spin games, and journalistic naivete.
“The Guardian, for sure.”
“Nobody comes even close to their level of plain antisemitism.”
“. . . they seem to have a consistent system of bashing Israel. ”
“Al-Guardian has to win; it’s almost impossible to be more biased than it is.”
The Guardian’s skewed news and commentary have a wide reach. In May alone, its web site drew in 50 million unique readers.
This paper systematically dislikes Israel. The sheer volume of The Guardian’s deliberately vicious output in 2011 necessitated a top 10 list of reasons it deserves the 2011 Dishonest Reporting Award.
Top 10 Reasons The Guardian Won the Dishonest Reporting Award
1. An Anti-Semitic Response to Gilad Shalit Swap
Deborah Orr
Responding to the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap, Deborah Orr said the disproportionate number of freed Palestinians for one soldier reflected the Jewish state’s “obscene idea that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives,” and that “the lives of the chosen are of hugely greater consequence than those of their unfortunate neighbours.”
Never mind that the disproportionate nature of the exchange was at the insistence of Hamas, or the fact that choseness actually refers to responsibility, not superiority.
HonestReporting was copied in on more than 500 complaints to The Guardian. The result?
Orr made a mealy-mouthed apology, but readers’ editor Chris Elliott acknowledged the presence of anti-Semitism in The Guardian, but didn’t directly judge Orr. Elliott appeared more concerned about the effects of anti-Semitism on the paper’s reputation than about the anti-Semitism itself.
When any paper’s public editor acknowledges anti-Semitism, that should raise red flags.
2. PaliLeaks
PLO documents on a decade of peace talks (The Palestine Papers, a.k.a. PaliLeaks) were leaked to The Guardian and Al-Jazeera. But the revelations — that Israel was actually serious about peace — sorely disappointed the editors.
In response, the editorial team displayed their objective detachment with a staff editorial that was “more Palestinian than the Palestinians.”
In The Guardian’s own words, PA negotiators were “craven” bootlickers who “conspire to build a puppet state in Palestine, at best authoritarian, at worst a surrogate for an occupying force.”
The Guardian also gave an op-ed platform to the Hamas chief of international relations, Osama Hamdan (more on the issue of giving an editorial soapbox to terror below) and published a controversial letter by Ted Honderich which legitimized and justified Palestinian terror. That letter sparked such outrage, readers’ editor Chris Elliott was compelled to weigh in — ultimately defending the decision to publish it.
Furthermore, the paper issued a correction for a quote box attributed to Tzipi Livni after editors conceded that the former foreign minister’s quote “was cut in a way that may have given a misleading impression.”
Overall, David Landau, Haaretz’s former chief editor, hit the nail on the head when he described The Guardian’s PaliLeaks presentation as “intended to poison the Palestinians against their leaders.”
3. Soapbox for Terror
Musa Abu Marzuq
Palestinian reconciliation efforts were on and off (mostly off) throughout the year. At one point, The Guardian gave Hamas spinmeister Musa Abu Marzuq the legitimacy of an op-ed soapbox.
Israel Law Center director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner told HonestReporting that newspapers which give terror groups like Hamas prominent op-ed bylines are skating on very thin legal ice. The op-ed is free publicity, which facilitates the terror organization’s PR:
Legally speaking, it would seem that there is not much difference between outlaw regimes like Iran and Syria, which illegally provide material support and resources to terrorist organizations, and liberal media outlets which provide millions of dollars in free advertising and access to groups like Hamas when they publish their leaders’ dangerous messages.
As mentioned above, The Guardian also gave a soapbox to to Osama Hamdan who discussed the Hamas response to the PaliLeaks affair.
4. Fishing for A Story
Correspondent Harriet Sherwood spent a day in July reporting and tweeting from a Gaza fishing boat testing the Israeli navy’s enforcement of a three-mile limit.
None of Sherwood’s 46 tweets acknowledged maritime arms smuggling as the reason for the naval restrictions. Four months before the jolly jaunt, the Israeli navy intercepted the Victoria, which was carrying anti-ship missiles, mortar shells, radar systems, and more.
Considering that Sherwood’s ditzy 2011 journalism included a claim that the Knesset is built on the ancestral farmland of the abandoned Palestinian village of Lifta (we debunked that false claim), and an airheaded look at an abandoned airplane (resolved by a reader’s biting comment), be thankful The Guardian left the Victoria story for AP.
5. Goldstone Recants
Judge Richard Goldstone
In a Washington Post op-ed, Judge Richard Goldstone backtracked on the UN report into Operation Cast Lead which he headed. His mea culpa specifically stated, “civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy” and accepted that the casualty figures were not as high as his report indicated.
The Guardian reacted with an arrogant, intellectually dishonest staff editorial denying that the Goldstone report ever accused Israel of deliberately attacking civilians in the first place.
As for the casualty numbers, the paper insisted on using the inflated casualty figures Goldstone disavowed — without explaining why. HonestReporting took apart that editorial in more depth.
6. Jawaher Abu Rahma
Palestinians claimed that Jawaher Abu Rahma died of tear gas inhalation at a demonstration in Bil’in.
Harriet Sherwood’s coverage compared Abu Rahma to Mohammed al-Dura, the 12 year-old Palestinian whose video (itself debunked) elevated the boy to iconic martyr status. Her report was also accompanied by Abu Rahma’s Red Crescent emergency case form, a CT scan and hospital report.
Lay readers can’t be expected to understand the meaning of these reports, but they did serve The Guardian’s purpose: disingenuously blaming Israel.
- The Palestinian medical report indicated no clear cause of death.
- Statements about tear gas inhalation were based on the family’s claims, not on any empirical determination.
- No post-mortem was performed.
In fact, an IDF investigation found that Abu Rahma died because of Palestinian medical malpractice.
Reporter Ana Carbajosa published a Jan. 9 puff piece interview with Abu Rahma’s mother giving further credibility to the Palestinian accusations.
7. A Bizarre Harangue
Jerusalem correspondent Harriet Sherwood displayed some of the groupthink we long suspected goes on at The Guardian with one unusually long and shrill telephone conversation in May.
The topic: Vittorio Arrigoni, a member of the International Solidarity Movement in Gaza who was kidnapped and murdered by Palestinian Salafists. Was it fair to label Arrigoni as an “activist?” There was a lot of debate. After the Jewish Chronicle published one forceful commentary, JC editor Stephen Pollard received a phone call from a very irate Sherwood.
She’s entitled to her views, but what Pollard described was a shocking inability to “agree to disagree.”
I pointed out again that I don’t agree with all the columns in the JC.
This came as a big shock to her: ‘But you’re defending your printing of the piece!’
‘Of course I am. I edit the paper.’ I replied.
There’s more, but you get the full drift.
Utterly bizarre. Or maybe not, given what she writes in the Guardian.
Harriet Sherwood and Stephen Pollard
8. The Palmer Report on the Mavi Marmara
When the UN’s Palmer report vindicated the legality of Israel’s Gaza blockade, a Guardian staff-editorial rebuked the inquiry simply because the findings contradicted an array of UN documents already bashing Israel:
The Palmer panel’s finding went against every statement the UN secretary general has made about Gaza, the Goldstone report and a report by the UN human rights council in September. If, as Palmer found, the siege is legal in international law, the occupation is too. This must be challenged in court.
Does The Guardian tolerate no dissent from its warped worldview? Must it obtain court rulings validating every criticism of Israel?
9. Quantifying the Spin
A print edition op-ed by Greg Philo, the research director of Glasgow University Media Unit, claimed to quantifiably prove that Israeli spin doctors have hijacked the Mideast narrative in media coverage.
HonestReporting addressed the commentary in more detail, pointing out, among other things, that A) Philo ignored hundreds of rockets fired during the course of a six-month cease-fire, B) denied Israel the right to defend its citizens from terror, and C) appearances at pro-Hamas forums belie Philo’s neutral academic persona.
10. London Riots
As London boiled over in August riots, one report in The Guardian didn’t bother to mention the race, religion, or ethnicity of anyone — except for a reference to a group of Hasidic Jews jeering the police.
When CiF Watch cried foul, The Guardian amended its article.
* * *
All these were just 10 of the most noteworthy examples of The Guardian’s obtuse brand of journalism HonestReporting observed.
On the macro level, the now-defunct Just Journalism (pdf) published a scathing report on The Guardian’s external op-eds over the first half of the year. Among its primary findings: more op-eds were published by Palestinians than by Israelis; all the Israelis given op-ed space were associated with the left-wing of Israeli politics. And three of the Palestinian contributors were either members of Hamas or strongly affiliated with it.
If the readers’ editor is really concerned about al-Guardian being perceived as an anti-Semitic newspaper, Chris Elliott should have some sleepless nights when he assesses the paper’s overall Mideast content from 2011.
Can the paper get any worse in 2012? Only time will tell.
Some images: CC BY-SA HonestReporting.com, flickr/kro-media, and flickr/Shorts and Longs | The Both And.
Clap Hammer
11:50 am
Dec 13, 2011
What I really ‘luv’ about The Guardian is that it claims to be ‘Fair and Balanced’ (No – Don’t laugh)
It also claims to be the newspaper of ‘progressives’ Well. The Sky Pixie save us from ‘progressives’ Retards might be more accurate.
And it is no longer a ‘newspaper’. It is a propaganda rag posing as a newspaper.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
46 
0
The 2011 Dishonest Reporting Awards are up! - ScrollPost.com
3:21 pm
Dec 13, 2011
[...] biased that Honest Reporting had to create a separate article just describing the top ten examples of Guardian bias, lies and sloppiness. But many of the other winners did things equally [...]
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
11 
0
2011 Dishonest Reporting Awards « housetops
7:07 pm
Dec 13, 2011
[...] Abu Marzuq, and Osama Hamdan. Honest Reporting has done its homework, check out the complete list here. Check it out, it’s well worth [...]
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
11 
0
Kris Kristians
8:15 pm
Dec 13, 2011
I thiunk you have missed the South African papers.
Cape Argus,
Cape Times,
Mail & Guardian.
They publish every “hate Jews/hate Israel; letters. But seldom letters written to counter their vile hatred.
but of course, in South Africa, we have a bigoted Jew hater in the name of Archbishop tutu.
One can imagine what his sermons were .like when he preached in the Anglicn churches
Unfortunately, the world is not aware of this man’s evil mind.
When he visited Yad Vashem in jerusalem, he said that the Jews must forgive the Nazis for the slaughter of 6 million Jews.
And he gets huge promotions in the press.
That man is evil and a real Jew hater.
But the press wont allow and critismof this evil man.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
30 
0
Eli Sheffer
3:33 pm
Dec 16, 2011
The politically correct West wouldn’t dare critisizing archbishop Tutu and he knows it, exploiting this idiotic trait to the hilt.
To some extent, beyond the “simple” anti-semitism, you might attribute the Guardian behaviour to the same “politically correct” disease (you realize, of course, that some elements of this “disease” might be associated with “Whitemen” patronizing “Blackmen”…
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
Hilary
10:51 am
Dec 17, 2011
there are any number of papers worldwide which mimic the guardian. here in australia, fairfax’s ‘age’ in melbourne, and their ‘sydney morning herald’ like to pride themselves as pure when they are anything but. the egregious paul mcgeough is one of their great pets.
honest reporting’s excellent work of necessity seems to focus on the english language press. i wonder about the vast networks in french, spanish and portuguese.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Stephen Regal
8:43 pm
Dec 13, 2011
The thing is we should not take any of the Guardian’s output seriously. After all it gave up being a quality newspaper some years ago when it changed from the “Manchester Guardian” and became a fantasy comic for pseudo intellectuals.
I know that their reporting, particualrly on Israel is Anti Semitic (read Anti Jewish) and the level of the crass reporting borders on Nazi Propaganda, however the low level intelligence of the readers that that it panders to are already Anti Establishment and hence, by definition anti Jewish.
Kepp up the good work but sadly you are “preaching to the converted”
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
15 
2
steve mann
8:53 pm
Dec 13, 2011
Can I add one more- They banned me from their comments page for writing pro Israeli “stuff”
Like the Health care products invented in Israel etc.
Mind you after much cajoling I am back in.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
17 
0
Hans
8:54 pm
Dec 13, 2011
I believe that ever since the Graun shut down it’s Unlimited Talk web forums they feel freer to “err” as they don’t get called on it immediately…
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
0
Dr.Rodney Gouttman
11:05 pm
Dec 13, 2011
The intrinsic hatred is magnified by global syndication. For example, the Guardian’s ideological pap provides regular copy the major Australian media outlet, the Fairfax Press which produces “The Sydney Morning Herald” and Melbourne’s ” The Age”. Both daily broadsheets are well read, and provide a discourse source for radio comment and other modes of other modes of modern news media.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
12 
0
Dishonest reporting award 2011 | Anna Ekström
11:29 pm
Dec 13, 2011
[...] ett mera välförtjänt pris, nämligen Dishonest Reporting Award. De som besöker sajten Honest reporting och har röstat fram pristagaren har i allmänhet inte så goda kunskaper i nordiska språk, så [...]
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
Emil Cohen
4:37 am
Dec 14, 2011
For a long time I have tried to understand where, this British hatred to Israel comes from…
Is it, the increasing number of muslims in Britain? Or is it something more mondaine? such as Jew hatred? Or??? any suggestions?
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
15 
0
John Hale
8:05 pm
Dec 15, 2011
don’t be influenced by what you read in the press and hear from the broadcast media – as demonstrated by the Guardian, BBC and other left leaning media outlets. The majority of UK citizens are well aware of the lies and bias coming from Muslim countries and organsations, and are equally mistrustful and downright sceptical of it all. The Guardian is not read by many people who are right thinking and sensible – it is renowned as a leftist rag that panders to the university/school/”social do-gooder” audience. There is a lot of sympathy and support for Israel in the UK – and the more it can get its story across and explain the truth of its situation, the more that support will grow.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
14 
0
Hilary
10:56 am
Dec 17, 2011
howard jacobson’s concept of the very british ASHamed jews (though we have a noisesome bunch of them in australia too), eloquently portrayed in ‘the finkler question’, does suggest your view may be more than somewhat optimistic.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Anonymous
10:16 pm
Dec 16, 2011
Dear Emile:
The Hatred of Jews is based on many things, in my opinion. However, there seems to be a profound current of innate Jealousy, ferocious envy if you will, that Jew-haters are desperate to conceal, particuliarly from themselves. I think that it probably has its genesis in the unavowed knowledge that Jews in many ways, carry a loftiness in the bearing and deportment, a native intelligence that riles and is vilified due to its innate exercise of true humility. It in no way means that Jews are “better” than anyone else, or “superior”, etc, simply different, and for many people, who do not wish to delve sincerely into the Spiritual realities of human existence and its implications for the human family, it is daunting to experience a People who seem to very naturally possess a heartfelt, natural affinity for understanding and discerning such issues AND exercising these values.
Simply put,, we’re different, and that is very annoying for members of our species who desperately, and secretly vie to be leaders of the Human Finite, Conformist League of Nations.
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
2011 Dishonest Reporting Awards | The Conservative Papers
9:41 am
Dec 15, 2011
[...] But Deborah Orr was not the only reason that The Guardian stood head and shoulders above other media outlets vying for this year’s Dishonest Reporter Award. From PaliLeaks, op-ed space for terrorists, its response to Judge Richard Goldstone’s mea culpa, and more – we had to write a separate Top 10 Reasons The Guardian Won. [...]
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
0
steve mann
7:58 pm
Dec 15, 2011
To day there was an article on the Guardians comments page by a female journalist (Forgot her name) titled should “God forgive Newt Gingrich’s ” Re his speech regarding the existance of the Palestinian people.
I pasted these questions-By Yashiko Sagamori
If you are so sure that “ Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history,” I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:
1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine ?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?
11. What was the name of its currency? Can you produce a “Palestinian” coin? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, Israeli shekel, or Chinese yuan on that date.
12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the “low sinking” of a “once proud” nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?
And what were its achievements?
I am not sure but I think I was the last to post on the subject- For on going back the whole article had disappeared- Even after going into the Guardians search box it come back Zero finds.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
18 
0
Shira
8:02 pm
Dec 15, 2011
I say: This is a great opportunity to get to know who’s who in the media. When you know, you stop reading certain papers, certain journalists, you view “evidence” with critical eye and draw from your own experience.
You also know who to “guard” yourself from (yes, it’s a pun…Guardian – guard…).
Good work Honest reporting !
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
8 
0
sam davies
8:21 pm
Dec 15, 2011
And yet, despite the Guardian’s being viciously and consistently anti-Israel, El-Al continues to pay money to it for advertising. Might I suggest a concerted campaign to persuade El-Al and any other Israeli or Jewish advertisers not to advertise in such a biased publication.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
1
Andy Gill
8:39 pm
Dec 15, 2011
The most risible aspect of the Guardian’s stance is that despite hosting bigoted Islamic reactionaries on Cif, continuing to host Caryl Churchill’s antisemitic play, refusing to report Palestinian atrocities against both Jews and their own people, publishing outright smears against the Jews by the like of Deborah Orr, the Guardian still considers itself to be a liberal newspaper.
Anyone examining the Guardian’s content would conclude it was funded by a rabid Islamist propaganda organization intent on turning the British public against Israel.
Well-loved. Agree or Disagree:
9 
0
SamtheSham
10:11 pm
Dec 15, 2011
Fortunately, the human mind (or for that matter….Lack Thereof) is most capable to convince itself of any variety of bizarre fixations and fanciful mis-speaks and untruths. One need only check the history of early WW@ to realize that “Peace in our Times” is self-delusional and quite insane under the real focus on the geopolitiks staring out from the facts on the ground….so to speak.
By the way, where are Adolph and Richard now????
p.s. What about the millions upon millions of non-events humans who died in that grotesque humanity messiness?
TTFN
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
phili
11:35 am
Dec 16, 2011
Jesus said: ‘Watch out that you are not deceived’ (Luke 21:8).
Thank you Honest Reporting.
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
Salah Yakoub
1:03 pm
Dec 16, 2011
The guardian is on the road to The News of The world scrap heap.
Deborah Orr thinks she has written a very good article on demonizing our Jewish nation and is going towards the News of the World club but don’t under estimate her. She has written these anti-semitic and untrue articles for a particular purpose and that being to increase the circulation of this rag newspaper whose circulation is rapidly approaching a stage prior to administration so how to save this newspaper “DEMONIZE OUR PEOPLE”.PROOF BEING 50.000.000 HITS ON THEIR WEBSITE.
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0
Ein Jahr unehrenhafte Berichterstattung: Warum der Guardian am Ende vorne lag « Medien BackSpin
6:10 pm
Dec 16, 2011
[...] HonestReporting Media BackSpin, 16. Dezember 2011 [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Georg Witt
2:19 am
Dec 17, 2011
Once, years ago, I considered the Manchester Guardian as one of the best newspapers in the UK, journalistically as well as politically. Its succesor, the “Guardian” (notice the quotes) has npne of these qualities but has descended to the lowest level conceivable. Having followed its output for years, I can unly cry out a “Bingo, at last !” at its selection as the most dishonest journalistic product in the Western world. ISince long I’ve been wondering of the reason for its vitiriolic inati-Isral and ant-semtitic engagement other than general exhibitionism. This perhaps needs an unbiased scientific study – at any rate, it motivates all support to Honest Reporting and its sanitary mission as guardian (!) of journalistic honesty. Dixi. .
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0
steve mann
12:55 pm
Dec 17, 2011
Yes George I recall the Manchester Guardian and it was all that you say- Then came the change of name and a man named Michael White as its political editor- Need I say when you view his background you will find for the want of a better word an extreme “Left Winger”- the type that never forgave Israel for seeking the assistance of the USA after the 48/50 war- Instead of becoming another Soviet Satellite- Especially in the M.E.
By the way how ironic if you want a job with the BBC then you have to buy the Guardian- thats where it advertise`s -
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0